Mike Huckabee Volunteers To Go To Jail For Kim Davis

[Saintscruiser]

I thought that Kentucky has a law defining marriage as a man and a woman. Have they changed the law? It seems to me that changing Kentucky law would be the first step. Why isn't religious belief a pure reason not to do this. Is it because she is a Christian and not some other false religion? Jesus said:

John 15:18-20 New King James Version
The World’s Hatred
18) “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19) If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20) Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Huckabee Volunteers to Go to Jail in Kim Davis' Place Over Gay Marriage Licenses
BY MICHAEL GRYBOSKI , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
September 9, 2015|11:03 am

"If you have to put someone in jail, I volunteer to go. Let me go. Lock me up if you think that's how freedom is best served," said Huckabee, as noted by CNN.

"I am willing to spend the next eight years in the White House leading in this country. But I want you to know I'm willing to spend the next eight years in jail, but I'm not willing to spend the next years in tyranny under people who think they can take our freedom and conscience away."

Over the summer Rowan County clerk Davis has garnered headlines for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a court order demanding that she do so.

• 
  
  (Photo: Reuters/Chris Tilley)
  Kim Davis, flanked by Republic presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (L) and and Attorney Mathew Staver (R) speaks to her supporters after walking out of jail in Grayson, Kentucky September 8, 2015. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered her release after six days in jail, saying she "shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples."

"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience,"stated Davis earlier this month.

"It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word."

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning eventually found Davis in contempt of court and sent her to jail instead of fining the clerk.

Supporters of Davis argued that she was being imprisoned for her Christian beliefs while detractors said that as a clerk she should have resigned instead of refusing to do her job.

On Tuesday, Bunning issued an order allowing for the release of Davis on the condition that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples.

"Davis shall not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples," read the order.

"If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered."

Huckabee was not the only social conservative to celebrate the release of Davis from jail. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, also gave remarks at the rally in Kentucky in support of Davis being released.

In his comments, Perkins likened Davis' struggle to that of the Pilgrims, who saw religious freedom as being more than simply the freedom to choose their church membership.

"They came for what Kim Davis is standing for. They came for the ability to live their lives according to their Christian faith," stated Perkins.

"It is time for Christian leaders who hold positions of public trust to resist the edicts of unelected and virtually unaccountable rulers who issue unjust edicts that conflict with the truth of God."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And all I can add is an AMEIN!

 

[Racehorse]

never mind --- decided not to post

 

[Saintscruiser]

never mind --- decided not to post

Racehorse, you restrained yourself. I applaud you on that! If you would like to post here, please read Sticky #5 and comply. Thank you!

 

[mightymen]

This is not about anyone's opinion, it's fact.

1. My authority to worship God comes from the highest authority that exists God Himself.
2. God gives me the right to believe God, God's words and written Scripture(Bible) to be true.
3. Man's law can't remove God's authority or prevent me from trusting and worshipping my God.

Genesis 2:24 tell us what a marriage is. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

Creation story could only have been told to Adam by God Himself for time nor man did not exist before God created them.

Above is fact that each person can believe or not believe. So if this is not about my God, then what is it about. Actually it is about my God and me. Founding fathers built into the constitution in the very first amendment showing the mindset and importance associated to the God given RIGHTS of man. I will fight for my God given Rights as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America given to me by God.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key defining word is "or"

Man wants to promote a lie as stated below but marriage has been defined many 1000 of years before this.

Many centuries ago, "wife" was synonymous with "woman." You can still find remnants of that in the construct of "midwife" or "fishwife". (Hey, it could have been worse; in Japanese, the symbols for Oku-san, or wife, also translate loosely to "person in the back.") The word didn't take on its meaning as "a married woman" until sometime between the third and twelfth centuries, give or take, and it took several centuries more to romanticize the job description to include keeper of heart, hearth and home.

Is It Time To Retire The Word 'Wife'? | Lisa Belkin

Agreeing that all people have freedom of religion allows me to have freedom of religion under man's law called the Constitution of United States of America which clearly acknowledges a supreme being as the authority that gives men RIGHTS. This is what it's all about for me.

Whether the supreme court rules right or wrong I am given a choice that is recorded in time that can't be erased or removed.

 

[BackDoc]

Sodom and Gomorra have nothing on us.........our constitution is meaningless to our supreme court, our leaders are self serving, our nation spends more time on entertainment than ever. Is it any wonder ?

 

[mightymen]

Sodom and Gomorra have nothing on us.........our constitution is meaningless to our supreme court, our leaders are self serving, our nation spends more time on entertainment than ever. Is it any wonder ?

When you think about this, it boils down to free will and freedom of believing and trusting in God. Freedom of religion is a man made law written into the Constitution that can point to many gods and God also it's freedom not to believe .

It's much more simple then that, God allows us to believe Him or not. It's nothing more then taken one of two paths.

Believer's who trusts God - God reveals the beginning and end to them and goes on to tell us.

John 15:20 "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."

 

[Saintscruiser]

Would this still be the same end if the clerk was a Muslim female or male of any other religion? Many religions don't believe in same sex marriage either. Altogether, I know of 3, off the top of my head. Think about this before you answer.....or not. To answer my question, if I were a betting person, which I am not, I think the outcome would be completely different! This completely obliterates the 1st Amendment and on the principle of freedom of religion!

To all Christians out there....would you make a stand like Kim Davis? I would hope I would. What people choose to do in their bedrooms is not my concern. I honestly and truly don't care one way or the other. But this, as I quoted, is breaking the Kentucky law and Kim's first Amendment rights. How very very sad for America. She is crumbling like the World Trade Center buildings, just slower.

 

[mightymen]

Would this still be the same end if the clerk was a Muslim female? They don't believe in same sex marriage either. Think about this before you answer.....or not. To answer my question, if I were a betting person, which I am not, I think the outcome would be completely different! How very very sad for America. She is crumbling like the World Trade Center buildings, just slower.

SC I don't allow myself to be defined as part of any group other then for understanding and communication. Because a person is a christian, Muslim or any religious does't make it wrong or right. Knowing what's right is knowing who and how it was designed. This is what in my opinion points us to God and Jesus as being the truth and the word of God.

 

[BackDoc]

We know the answer saint, it would not be the same outcome.........

 

[SomeTexan]

There is supposed to be a separation in Church and State. If she wants to work for the government, she needs to understand that not everyone is forced to believe the same as her.

On a slightly different note, I don't think the government should have any hand in licensing marriage. Marriage is done in/by a Church. The government should handle "partnership agreements" on a seperate level. Would she still refuse to sign something like that?

 

[mightymen]

You guys are awhere that the county clerk deputy is taking her to court.
Papers were filed Friday I believe. Over her name not on the marriage license his lawyer believes they can be worthless. Also one couple is seeking legal advice.

 

[Jman8]

This is not about anyone's opinion, it's fact.

1. My authority to worship God comes from the highest authority that exists God Himself.
2. God gives me the right to believe God, God's words and written Scripture(Bible) to be true.
3. Man's law can't remove God's authority or prevent me from trusting and worshipping my God.

Genesis 2:24 tell us what a marriage is. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

I thought this was for Christian vapers. Why are you quoting Old Testament as "authority" if this is for Christians.

How about this quote from New Testament (1 Corinthians 7):

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

To me, this is saying 2 things. Important thing is "do not marry" if you care about devotion to God. Less important thing, but fairly practical while here on earth is, "marry if you must to keep your passion within check."

Chapter does specify heterosexual arrangements, but passage I selectively quoted does not. Either way, that is clearly the less important message than what is being conveyed in the chapter, which is "do not marry."

Gospels emphasize relationship between God and Creation, staying away from human arrangements for "love" for good reason, IMO.

Man wants to promote a lie as stated below but marriage has been defined many 1000 of years before this.

 

[Vapenstein]

Is it because she is a Christian and not some other false religion?

It's amusing to read this because the sentiment is the same one radical Muslims wrap their insanity in to justify it. Never mind that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed, and ample evidence that the character was a fiction created by the Romans as a means of populace control, and then embraced by succeeding European dynasties as a mechanism of conquest and populace control. I don't buy it, I don't share your faith. But you believe, and in this country you are free to believe and practice without fear of persecution.

However, that does not give you or any other religious group the right to impose your religious beliefs on our secular government and laws. The majority of America's founding fathers were mostly non-denominational and a few atheists. These men understood through experience the danger of mixing religious ethics and secular law. The two don't mix, even more so in a society that is less and less homogenous every year.

So if you truly value your religious freedom, you value the religious freedom of your countrymen as well, regardless what their religion or lack of is. You can't have it both ways. Come right out and say that you want the Christian equivalent of Islamic State in this country, or embrace the freedom to choose and practice that you have here. If you choose the latter, be prepared to tolerate some things that go against your morality for the common good.

 

[mightymen]

I thought this was for Christian vapers. Why are you quoting Old Testament as "authority" if this is for Christians.

How about this quote from New Testament (1 Corinthians 7):



To me, this is saying 2 things. Important thing is "do not marry" if you care about devotion to God. Less important thing, but fairly practical while here on earth is, "marry if you must to keep your passion within check."

Chapter does specify heterosexual arrangements, but passage I selectively quoted does not. Either way, that is clearly the less important message than what is being conveyed in the chapter, which is "do not marry."

Gospels emphasize relationship between God and Creation, staying away from human arrangements for "love" for good reason, IMO.



And some Christians want to promote a lie for what is actual Love.

Short comment on your post.

Jesus said in the volume of the scripture it is written about me.

Including since all there was old testament scripture.

Where else should I quote if not from the old and new testaments.

 

[Jman8]

Short comment on your post.

Jesus said in the volume of the scripture it is written about me.

Including since all there was old testament scripture.

Where else should I quote if not from the old and new testaments.

I'd suggest sticking to New Testament. If thinking OT is pertinent to Christ, then surely you can open your mind to progressive revelation understanding that our Father has not stopped speaking to humanity 2000 years ago. From that position, you realize what you can quote from is without limit.

 

[mightymen]

I'd suggest sticking to New Testament. If thinking OT is pertinent to Christ, then surely you can open your mind to progressive revelation understanding that our Father has not stopped speaking to humanity 2000 years ago. From that position, you realize what you can quote from is without limit.

I'll rather continue in the teachings that has proven to be true and not flounder in a new teaching.

God spoke to humity in the gardern and has continued since.

 

[Vapenstein]

Exactly. Government legislates societal morality. Religious morality is a choice. Religious morality is subject to, and must never supersede, federal, state and local laws.

 

[Saintscruiser]

I'd suggest sticking to New Testament. If thinking OT is pertinent to Christ, then surely you can open your mind to progressive revelation understanding that our Father has not stopped speaking to humanity 2000 years ago. From that position, you realize what you can quote from is without limit.

Jesus is a common denominator throughout the entire Bible.....starting with Genesis.... "Let Us make man in Our own Image." Almighty God, Bless His Holy Name, was talking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 53 is completely about the Jesus on the Cross. Even though I lean mainly to the New Testament, I can see Jesus throughout the Old. Mightymen has a better knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament plainly shows that there was a need for a Saviour as no one could then and can't now keep the 10 commandments. Scripture states that if you break one commandment, you've broken all of them. For:

Romans 3:10-11 King James Version
10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

[Saintscruiser]

I thought there's not much that could possibly surprise me... yet I'm proven wrong almost every day.

There's a bit of a confusion here. From what I've read, nobody has forced any different belief on that lady, and nobody has reprimanded her for her opinion (the so valued American First Amendment of the Constitution). What people seem to overlook is that she is in a position where HER freedom allows her to abuse other people's freedoms - thus a position of power which she abuses. Nobody is forcing her to continue doing that job - but if she wants to, the secular law says that she must do it in a certain manner. If this goes against her beliefs, then it is her right to choose her beliefs over her job. But forcing them (the beliefs) upon others via the power of her job is abuse, plain and simple. And it is this abuse that she's being punished for.

I sure wish that this type of individuals never have any decision making power in ANY secular structure - including a government apparatus. If you want examples of what happens otherwise, I give you just one word (ok, make that three): The Holy Inquisition. Would you be happy in such times?

Religious fanaticism never did good to any society. The Western one lived in a dark age for many centuries, and some ......s (in the sense of 'people who choose not to evolve', not necessarily mentally impaired) would like to revive something similar in a certain part of the world. Is this what you want?

What you have overlooked is that 1) she is an elected official; 2) She is enforcing Kentucky's law. Kentucky's law states that to get a marriage license, there has to be one man and one woman. She is enforcing the law. Now everyone is upset??

Again, I say that what people do in their bedrooms is not my concern. But I am concerned that the law is being broken and this lady's beliefs are being stepped on.

I haven't evolved. God's Word, Bless His Holy Name, hasn't changed in well over 2000 years. If you wish to classify me as a fanatic, then that's fine. I realize you don't understand this, and I'm not going to criticize you for not believing as I do. But you are in the Christian Vapor's Room, and this room is based on Christians coming together sharing, caring, laughing with each other, crying with each other, keeping up with the news, praying, rejoicing, Praising Almighty God, Bless His Holy Name, and loving each other. We also love others, new people, as they are always welcome. However, I always ask new people to read Sticky #5 and comply.

I wish great things for you!

 

[zapped]

I agree Saint.
Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them?

Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.

The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law.

Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage.

Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling.

In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.

Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level.

In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.